Laptop computer

Adi Head · November 13th, 2005, 09:30 PM

glen, i don't mean to bug you about it... i just want to get to the bottom of this video card matter.

in your opinion, is there a reason why i should notice any significant difference between video editing on a set-up that has dedicated ram for video and 512mb system memory as opposed to a set up that the video ram is shared (like for example the video card i mentioned), but with 1GB system memory, so there's a lot to share of?

thanks,

adi

Glenn Chan · November 13th, 2005, 10:03 PM

I would guess that the system with the 1GB RAM is faster.

Why:
Your programs can likely benefit from 1GB of RAM (over 512MB). When you run out of RAM, your system has to use the hard drive instead (which is like 60X slower). So you see dramatic slowdowns when Windows has to shift information from hard drive to RAM and vice versa. i.e. when switching between programs.

With on-board/integrated video, some of the system RAM is given to the video card (however much it needs or uses). You lose some RAM there.
The integrated video uses up some of the system's memory bandwidth, but that only hurts performance very very slightly.

George Ellis · November 14th, 2005, 06:29 AM

Since it is probably Pinnacle software, video is important. The X200 chipset with 128MB of memory is just OK. A faster dedicated chipset would be better. I have a X200 with 128, and 512MB of RAM. If you have never run it on anything else, it would just be ok. It is slow if you compare it to a regular full-time editor. Remember that Pinnacle (now Avid) uses DirectX 9c for a lot of its operations in both Studio 10 and Liquid 5 or later. GPU performance is important.

George Ellis · November 14th, 2005, 05:48 PM

I just saw this thread that has GPUs and brands
http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...&enterthread=y

Glenn Chan · November 14th, 2005, 05:48 PM

George: You're talking about Pinaccle/Avid Liquid right? You're right in that it does take advantage of a fast video card.

Not all editors do though, and the recommended specs will bear that out.

Alexey Malyshev · November 20th, 2005, 01:15 PM

I remember switching from MX4400 with 64MB to GeForce 5200 with 128MB. It made a lot of difference on how video is played in both Adobe and Avid apps. I believe anything that works on Win platform would benefit from faster videocard and more video RAM. If you look around more than just looking at Dell or HP you can find laptops with good videocards and wouldn't have to sacrifice system RAM or videocard. Also it's usually an easy upgrade from 512 RAM to 1GB but it's harder if not impossible to upgrade you videocard in a laptop. You can even upgrade you CPU fairly easy on a laptop so if the money is an issue I would chouse to sacrifice 1. System RAM - cheapest and easiest upgrade 2. Hard Disk - you will probably end up using external hard drives anyway. 3. CPU - you will probably loose some money on the upgrade but you can still do it.

Bill Gehrke · December 3rd, 2005, 07:58 PM

Glenn, You mention the lack of good benchmark data. I have developed a Premiere Pro benchmark that I call PPBM+. It is at http://mysite.verizon.net/wgehrke/ppbm/. With this benchmark I have done a lot of testing on my notebook, a HP zv5000z. I love the notebook for my video editing. It is faster than my current desktop and a lot more convienent than the desktop.

As for results I have tested it with three different speed disk drives and two memory configurations. Shortly after Christmas I will have results from my Christmas present upgraded CPU. With Premiere Pro I test how long it takes to:
1. Render the timeline.
2. Export the timeline to a single AVI file.
3. Export to a high quality MPEG file.

The rendering and exporting to MPEG are the most time consuming operations, and are almost exclusively CPU dependent. The exporting the AVI timeline to a single AVI file is extensively disk dependent. I have data with three different speed disk drives, 4200 rpm, 5400 rpm, and 7200 rpm. While the exporting to AVI is only roughly 15-20% of the time for the other two operations it does show the advantages of the higher speed disk drive. But in the more time consuming processes it makes very little difference, especially between the 5400 and 7200 rpm drives (both 100GB). My conclusions so far are CPU, CPU, CPU!

Incidently, I pulled out one of my 512MB sticks and did not find much difference in performance in a stripped down (single tasking--about 28 processes running and a well defragmented disk system).

Glenn Chan · December 3rd, 2005, 09:20 PM

Hi Bill,

You're right in that the tasks depend *highly* on the CPU. Where the extra RAM helps is when you would like to multi-task and have many programs open at once... premiere, photoshop, iTunes/music, MPEG2 encoder, web browser (for help and things like that), etc. I often find myself in a situation like that and find that the system can slow down dramatically when the system needs to wait for information not stored in RAM.

George Ellis · December 5th, 2005, 06:43 AM

But do remember that the OP is using Pinnacle software and that it is Studio 10 (with the Liquid engine). CPU, GPU, CPU ;)

I have never seen an error with drive speed once the video is on the set. The drive speed does matter when you are logging it through a logger that also does playback. It will drop frames. I have to either log on another system, backup, and then load the backup on the laptop, or use Scenalyzer or Studio (no preview) to capture an AVI and then import it (which can take up to 15 minutes for 1 hr).

December 3rd, 2005, 07:58 PM	#22
Bill Gehrke New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Great Falls, VA Posts: 6	Benchmark Data Glenn, You mention the lack of good benchmark data. I have developed a Premiere Pro benchmark that I call PPBM+. It is at http://mysite.verizon.net/wgehrke/ppbm/. With this benchmark I have done a lot of testing on my notebook, a HP zv5000z. I love the notebook for my video editing. It is faster than my current desktop and a lot more convienent than the desktop. As for results I have tested it with three different speed disk drives and two memory configurations. Shortly after Christmas I will have results from my Christmas present upgraded CPU. With Premiere Pro I test how long it takes to: 1. Render the timeline. 2. Export the timeline to a single AVI file. 3. Export to a high quality MPEG file. The rendering and exporting to MPEG are the most time consuming operations, and are almost exclusively CPU dependent. The exporting the AVI timeline to a single AVI file is extensively disk dependent. I have data with three different speed disk drives, 4200 rpm, 5400 rpm, and 7200 rpm. While the exporting to AVI is only roughly 15-20% of the time for the other two operations it does show the advantages of the higher speed disk drive. But in the more time consuming processes it makes very little difference, especially between the 5400 and 7200 rpm drives (both 100GB). My conclusions so far are CPU, CPU, CPU! Incidently, I pulled out one of my 512MB sticks and did not find much difference in performance in a stripped down (single tasking--about 28 processes running and a well defragmented disk system). __________________ Bill

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

November 13th, 2005, 09:30 PM	#16
Adi Head Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 642	glen, i don't mean to bug you about it... i just want to get to the bottom of this video card matter. in your opinion, is there a reason why i should notice any significant difference between video editing on a set-up that has dedicated ram for video and 512mb system memory as opposed to a set up that the video ram is shared (like for example the video card i mentioned), but with 1GB system memory, so there's a lot to share of? thanks, adi

November 13th, 2005, 10:03 PM	#17
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	I would guess that the system with the 1GB RAM is faster. Why: Your programs can likely benefit from 1GB of RAM (over 512MB). When you run out of RAM, your system has to use the hard drive instead (which is like 60X slower). So you see dramatic slowdowns when Windows has to shift information from hard drive to RAM and vice versa. i.e. when switching between programs. With on-board/integrated video, some of the system RAM is given to the video card (however much it needs or uses). You lose some RAM there. The integrated video uses up some of the system's memory bandwidth, but that only hurts performance very very slightly.

November 14th, 2005, 06:29 AM	#18
George Ellis Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Suwanee, GA Posts: 1,241	Since it is probably Pinnacle software, video is important. The X200 chipset with 128MB of memory is just OK. A faster dedicated chipset would be better. I have a X200 with 128, and 512MB of RAM. If you have never run it on anything else, it would just be ok. It is slow if you compare it to a regular full-time editor. Remember that Pinnacle (now Avid) uses DirectX 9c for a lot of its operations in both Studio 10 and Liquid 5 or later. GPU performance is important.

November 14th, 2005, 05:48 PM	#19
George Ellis Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Suwanee, GA Posts: 1,241	I just saw this thread that has GPUs and brands http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...&enterthread=y

November 20th, 2005, 01:15 PM	#21
Alexey Malyshev New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Fairbanks, AK Posts: 16	I remember switching from MX4400 with 64MB to GeForce 5200 with 128MB. It made a lot of difference on how video is played in both Adobe and Avid apps. I believe anything that works on Win platform would benefit from faster videocard and more video RAM. If you look around more than just looking at Dell or HP you can find laptops with good videocards and wouldn't have to sacrifice system RAM or videocard. Also it's usually an easy upgrade from 512 RAM to 1GB but it's harder if not impossible to upgrade you videocard in a laptop. You can even upgrade you CPU fairly easy on a laptop so if the money is an issue I would chouse to sacrifice 1. System RAM - cheapest and easiest upgrade 2. Hard Disk - you will probably end up using external hard drives anyway. 3. CPU - you will probably loose some money on the upgrade but you can still do it.

December 3rd, 2005, 09:20 PM	#23
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	Hi Bill, You're right in that the tasks depend highly on the CPU. Where the extra RAM helps is when you would like to multi-task and have many programs open at once... premiere, photoshop, iTunes/music, MPEG2 encoder, web browser (for help and things like that), etc. I often find myself in a situation like that and find that the system can slow down dramatically when the system needs to wait for information not stored in RAM.

December 5th, 2005, 06:43 AM	#24
George Ellis Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Suwanee, GA Posts: 1,241	But do remember that the OP is using Pinnacle software and that it is Studio 10 (with the Liquid engine). CPU, GPU, CPU ;) I have never seen an error with drive speed once the video is on the set. The drive speed does matter when you are logging it through a logger that also does playback. It will drop frames. I have to either log on another system, backup, and then load the backup on the laptop, or use Scenalyzer or Studio (no preview) to capture an AVI and then import it (which can take up to 15 minutes for 1 hr).